posted
Rumors are that in a big announcement that Sarah Palin will give soon, she will say that she is not running for reelection of Alaska.
Almost everyone is seeing this as a sign that she will run for the presidency after her term ends at the end of 2010. The speculation swirls around the fact that she still appears to be popular enough to win reelection, and several sources are pegging her for a run for the presidency.
This is still a long way off, but I think it's a sign. It's a pretty ballsy move too, as she's nowhere near the odds on favorite among GOP candidates.
posted
As Hillary Clinton was the preferred Democratic presidential candidate for Republican strategists, Governor Palin is the preferred Republican candidate for Democratic strategists.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, I hope they don't run her. A candidate who doesn't inspire spitting, frothing hatred in the Democratic base would be a lot better for keeping them honest.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Current polls, which are more or less useless this far out, have her running even with Huckabee and Romney.
Those three have the name recognition, but next generation republicans are going to wait to get involved. I think around the midterms you'll see some of the lesser knowns like Pawlenty start to make a serious drive to get some name recognition so they don't get clobbered by the big three off the bat.
It remains to be seen who of the GOP fold will throw their hat into the ring, but I think a couple of young GOP governors will, in addition to Palin. This announcement just confirms what we all suspected, but I don't really think it matters as far as the nomination goes. We're a year away from knowing who the players are.
And we can still cross our fingers that Obama will drop Biden and get someone else. It might sound unlikely, but Biden won't run in 2016, and having the sitting VP be the candidate is a big advantage. There have been a number of times in history when presidents have traded out VPs in their reelection bid.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hah, she even just made a snarky swipe at climate change.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It might sound unlikely, but Biden won't run in 2016
Why is that?
Lots of reasons. Age will be a factor. For a guy who spent a lot of time bashing McCain for being too old, he'll be in his mid 70s by 2016, and really he's a holdover from the last generation of Democrats. Obama is the first president of the next generation. I just think his time is past. Besides, if none of that mattered, he'd likely be up against Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and I really don't see why he'd bother. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama bring her in as VP if she makes a push for it, but I'd like to see him go with a fresher face.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If she genuinely believes that the country is going down the wrong path, then Romney's biggest advantage in 2012 will be his ability to declare his independence from all of it. After all, he hasn't held a public office for some time now.
Or maybe the ADN has some serious dirt on her. Who knows?
posted
I think after her performance as the GOP VP pick, a lot of experienced political talent isn't going to want to be associated with her. If there's one thing she established a reputation for in 2008, it was running off and doing her own thing in spite of or even against the recommendations of the advisers.
She's also managed, in the short time that she's been in the spotlight, to pick up a remarkable amount of unfortunate baggage. Whoever she runs against won't even have to come up with negative campaign advertising; they can just buy time to give 15- and 30-second clips of her interview with Couric.
Still, I guess she does have name recognition and a certain folksy appeal to a certain set. She sure as heck wouldn't be my choice to run the country, even limited to the current crop of GOP governors, but I think she's probably capable of making a showing. Making a showing and losing with poor grace, most likely, but making a showing.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, what a train wreck of a resignation speech. Romney has to be the happiest man in America right now, all of his potential adversaries for the GOP nomination in 2012 are self destructing.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This is still a long way off, but I think it's a sign. It's a pretty ballsy move too, as she's nowhere near the odds on favorite among GOP candidates.
I think she's narcissistic enough to believe she can win. I also hope she gets the nomination, because I think it strains credulity to imagine her besting Obama in any aspect of a Presidential race. Maybe she thinks that doesn't matter, and she can win among her base... but that sure as hell didn't work last time.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: Wow, what a train wreck of a resignation speech. Romney has to be the happiest man in America right now, all of his potential adversaries for the GOP nomination in 2012 are self destructing.
Perhaps I'm being too gleeful about this situation with Palin. On the one hand I really do find her to be, well, lets say "objectionable," but on the other hand this could as well have to do with something more personal. Perhaps she's sick? Perhaps she's depressed or mentally ill, or just exhausted and wanting suddenly to retire from this life?
It's one hell of a statement to make if you're actually planning to run for President, not even finishing the single term of your one statewide office. Perhaps she just doesn't have what it takes, and got swept away in the maelstrom of the election cycle.
But on the other hand again, this whole process has been something of a beautiful disaster.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
To all those vociferously anti-Palin folk: congratulations. We have just been hand-delivered the coup de grace on a silver platter. This event is a complete vindication, but it's almost unnecessary given how thorough her self-destruction has been throughout her political spotlight.
To all those who have been rooting for Palin, you got suckered bigtime. Sorry, but she's through and along every step of the way she has dug her own grave.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's passe to criticize Palin's linguistic abilities at this point, but how in the world can she speak so poorly, even in a prepared statement? It's just freaking weird the way she strings words together- am I the only one who finds himself jumping back again and again to try and piece together the sentences in a way that makes sense?
Most of her sentences show verb/object confusion, dangling modifiers, and just plain awkward constructions.
"It's like when you're writing a sentence about proper grammar, and the structure, and also it's important to make it work, too, that other people might be understanding it also."
It's a PREPARED SPEECH- one that she is aware will be broadcast internationally. Does she have so little regard for, or communication with her staff that nobody ever stops her and says, "look, let someone fix this, you sound undereducated."
Ok, this has been done a thousand times, so I'll stop.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is actually fairly simple: She's babbling. She's in Debacle Mode (not to be confused with depeche mode). Sanford is a better speaker than her and he still was reduced to this level. All we're seeing is the purest form of Palin's embarrassing ingenue at work, which is "a political figurehead who is nominally incapable of keeping herself coherent."
Add into the mix that she's utterly blowing the tires off her remaining political credibility, and the fact that there are few logical explanations for her behavior that do not involve an imminent scandal, and I would only be surprised if she were not melting down on-stage.
She may be pulling this off worse than the Sanford debacle, which is saying something, because Sanford's rambling, jejune speech was pretty bad. But not as bad as this!
This is a brutal and total vindication of everyone who knew right from the beginning that Palin was a completely worthless candidate. We have just been hand-delivered the coup de grace on a silver platter. It's more or less here for us to put an ailing, indefensible candidate out of her political misery.
Taking bets that something big is about to explode right on the heels of this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like you Sam, because you force me to look up words when I read your posts. This post it was "ingénue" but I'm a bit confused on your use of it because the OAD says:
quote: Dictionary ingénue |ˈanjəˌnoō; ˈän zh-| noun an innocent or unsophisticated young woman. • a part of this type in a play. • an actress who plays such a part. ORIGIN French, feminine of ingénu ‘ingenuous,’ from Latin ingenuus (see ingenuous ).
You're using it, if I follow, to describe her personality or demeanor. Or are you referring to her daughter?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Taking bets that something big is about to explode right on the heels of this.
Yes. My ears are pricked.
...
By the way, I was especially struck by her employment of the "suffer the slings and arrows" idiom, which she placed in the context of public ridicule of her policies. Of course, "sling and arrows" is best known in connection with "outrageous fortune," and on top of that it comes from a monologue about suicide and regicide. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. I'm not claiming she *can't* use that idiom if she wants, but it's a weird one to use in my mind.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that she is unimpressive as a potential president or vice president. I agree with how ludicrous so many people find her. I am not a fan in any way! But some points need to be made.
quote:I think after her performance as the GOP VP pick, a lot of experienced political talent isn't going to want to be associated with her. If there's one thing she established a reputation for in 2008, it was running off and doing her own thing in spite of or even against the recommendations of the advisers.
She still draws the biggest crowds for anyone in the GOP. A celebrity in a fractured party with a devoted following for the hard core base, no matter how ludicrous she is, can still make a big splash.
The republican party has no voice right now and she draws a significant portion of the base. She is useless with a national audience, but no one has been vindicated yet.
I see a bright future for Tina Fey.
quote:I know it's passe to criticize Palin's linguistic abilities at this point, but how in the world can she speak so poorly, even in a prepared statement? It's just freaking weird the way she strings words together- am I the only one who finds himself jumping back again and again to try and piece together the sentences in a way that makes sense?
I don't think you are her intended audience. The likes of Hannity and Beck and their rather large audience will be inspired--and that is the purpose of her decision and speech.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what I described had nothing to do with whether her speech was inspiring or not (though I found nothing in it to suggest inspiration), but rather it was something anyone could recognize. She doesn't speak well, and not in the way that George Bush is inarticulate. As an English teacher, and granted all my students are foreigners, I would diagnose the problem as stemming from a poor grasp of the register being used. I have students with better English than Palin's, no joke, and the ones who come up with word salad like this are the ones who don't read. Simple- they don't read in English, and so they don't understand the subtlety of our formal register. That's Palin- I honestly think she has a learning disorder. I'm far from an expert, but this is nothing to do with ideology or belief- anyone could recognize that she is an incompetent speaker.
Edit: I'm reading the text of the speach now. I'm sorry, but goddamn she is a terrible speaker. It's not style, it's more than that. It's substance, it's thinking, it's the application of critical thought. She has never showed any. Ever.
It's like this business about her son, an issue that, from where I'm sitting, got no *real* press attention. She concludes the diggs at the media by saying that she's glad she has her son because it makes her a better person, that we "need more trigs, no less." It's catchy, but she's saying in essence that we need more retarded children because it would be good for us as people... I mean as much as I want to be charitable about that thought, there's something macabre about it coming out of her mouth on the heels of a speech about how effective she has been as a Governor who has governed for less than one term (and months out of that having been spent as a national candidate away from her special needs child).
posted
While I agree with the rest, I doubt seriously she thinks of her son as retarded. I would take that to mean she believes we need more wonderful children in the world.
And she hasn't quite matched Sanford yet, not till she gets up and resigns three or four more times with increasingly explicit reasons.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course Chris, that's what the statement is meant to convey. The problem for me was that I instantly thought, "wait, we need more retarded people... really?" Not in the spirit of what she was saying, but also off-putting in the way it was stated.
Ok guys, I take no responsibility for this link beyond sharing it with you, because it just showed up over on Ornery:
On the face of it, I don't see this as likely, and it might be an all out hoax. Take that into account.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
I think the only really bad thing about Palin is that people think someone so willfully uninformed and anti-intellectual is qualified for national office.
I feel the same way about George W. Bush, by the way. It's not sexism.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: I agree that she is unimpressive as a potential president or vice president. I agree with how ludicrous so many people find her. I am not a fan in any way! But some points need to be made.
quote:I think after her performance as the GOP VP pick, a lot of experienced political talent isn't going to want to be associated with her. If there's one thing she established a reputation for in 2008, it was running off and doing her own thing in spite of or even against the recommendations of the advisers.
She still draws the biggest crowds for anyone in the GOP. A celebrity in a fractured party with a devoted following for the hard core base, no matter how ludicrous she is, can still make a big splash.
The republican party has no voice right now and she draws a significant portion of the base. She is useless with a national audience, but no one has been vindicated yet.
I see a bright future for Tina Fey.
I would note that I wasn't denying her popularity with some people (heck, a significant number of people) in what I said. My point was more that her history has not been one that would likely attract a Karl Rove or a James Carville (or their ilk) to her side. Who would want to see their wise, considered counsel ignored? Who would want to become the scapegoat if she flamed out again? Or even face the possibility of a cabinet position with someone you know is going to make bad decisions for failing to follow your advice, should they come to office?
Being telegenic and even charming can only get you so far in a campaign. You need people who can run the logistics to make it real; people who can spin your inevitable gaffes and mistakes so they aren't still headlines three days later; people who can pace you so you don't go into a debate after three days of wall-to-wall campaign stops with a headache and an aching neck from trying to sleep on a bus. Palin has projected a persona that is anathema to people who do these kinds of things well: "I make poor decisions, I will not be 'handled' or 'contained', and I will lash out at you if I fail."
No arguments about Tina Fey, though.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
Oh I believe it was absolutely trumped by the fact that she wasn't even remotely a qualified candidate and became the face of an intransigent minority hellbent on preserving awful social policy, and was also an inept executive, and was about to be Vice President at one point.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
Oh I believe it was absolutely trumped by the fact that she wasn't even remotely a qualified candidate and became the face of an intransigent minority hellbent on preserving awful social policy, and was also an inept executive, and was about to be Vice President at one point.
I sense that we're meant to feel rebuked... Not feeling it, somehow. You? Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
I'd say the only really bad thing about Palin is that she wasn't in the kitchen where women belong.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
Sometimes people earn it.
This is one of those situations, to a degree.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am blanking the attachment to these jokes about sexism. Is it related to katharina's previous stance on the attention Palin garnered?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the only really bad thing about Palin is the appalling, nasty, dreadful behavior people perform when they talk about her.
Kat, She's a raving loon. Seriously. If it wasn't obvious before it should be now. There comes a point where continuing to insist otherwise just makes you look like a loon as well. If its that difficult for you to graceful admit you were dead wrong on this one, it would be more prudent just to say absolutely nothing than to continue repeating something everyone now knows is ridiculous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
It's actually pretty readable that way. I think she's saying she's going to go be a lobbyist and get paid. Can't blame her for that.
From the site:
quote: lemme go back quickly to a comfortable analogy for me and thats sports basketball and i use it because you are naive if you dont see a full court press from the national level picking away right now
I am curious what she's referring to here. I'm not sure what a full court press is, so I don't get the analogy. The Democrats are trying to run off the Republicans, is that what she's alleging? Or just that she's lost everyone's respect and no one will work with her now?
I agree that she's looney, but I'm kind of curious to know what her take on things really is. I hope she keeps a diary or other people keep her letters. Someday, I'd like to see a good biographer explain what she really means by all this.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I'd like to see a good biographer explain what she really means by all this.
In the context of what we're probably about to find out, it is likely a transparent gloss-over for "Congratulations, you guys were about to find every single skeleton in my closet."
If she's resigning now over a brewing scandal, then there's three levels to these things.
1. What she says 2. What she'll justify it as later 3. What she's probably thinking
and yes, a good combination of #2 and #3 are the purview of a biographer.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has almost, but not quite enough, sanctimony. It needs more.
Not that I liked Palin as potential city dogcatcher, much less VP, but insisting those who defend her - even if they're not, really - or those who support her must be some sort of mental defectives, well, that's just spiffy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she is legitimately retiring, at least for a couple of years. At the risk of being tremendously condescending, I don't think Sarah Palin was really prepared to run on the presidential ticket. From day one, she seemed a bit prom queen-ish: the snap decision to accept the nomination, the performance in interviews. I don't think she was prepared, either in the place in her life at the moment or by the Republican Party to take on something quite so big. I think her inexperience was not only a problem when it came to actually governing, but also being prepared and being hard enough (not tough, I believe Sarah Palin is a pretty tough person) to deal with the ensuing onslaught. She's clearly attached to her family and I think the fact that they became so central to her run was probably pretty painful.
I totally see a resignation from politics-- a real one, at least for now-- at this point. The fact that the onslaught on her eldest daughter and her son didn't end after the failed bid I think is pretty key. I don't think she was really prepared to fail (again, by herself or by the party).
I suspect she'll be back in a couple of years, probably as a lobbyist.
***
The thing that I don't get is, outside of personal reasons to resign now, the "lame duck" comment. She says she doesn't want to finish her term because-- why? Because without the promise or possibility of re-election she's just killing time? That seems upsidedown to me. I would have thought that someone who works only because they're going to be re-elected is exactly the kind of person you don't want in Politics (or in any job, really). It shows a very lazy attitude towards work and very poor dedication. That might be forgivable if you're working at McDonalds, but if you're in politics, you should at least pretend you care enough about the people you're representing to finish your term.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: No it isn't. For my part however, I feel that while most people might draw opposing conclusions like, "I'd vote for her," and "I wouldn't vote for her" and their basis for disagreement is truly a matter of opinion, in Sarah Palin's case, I honestly feel that the statement, "She is not qualified to be a good president" is true beyond any reasonable doubt. I've never heard a good criticism of that statement, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't.
I just don't see why she would make a good candidate. To me, her positions on issues that matter to me are more often wrong than right. In addition, her understanding of the world is limited to the point that I don't believe she has the ground work necessary to make even basically correct decisions regarding foreign policy and dealing with leaders from other countries.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the defense of her that I see can be attributed to the "weak man" argument, where defenders ignore the valid complaints about her and target only the vicious attacks.
Statement #1: Gov. Palin has displayed poor judgment in her ethical dealings. Statement #2: Gov. Palin has repeatedly misstated events and belligerently stuck to those misstatements, even in the face of irrefutable evidence against them. Statement #3: During her campaign Gov. Palin spoke to the worst elements of her party, deliberately evoking connections between Obama and terrorists even after Sen. McCain spoke against such statements. Statement #4: While Gov. Palin undoubtedly has experience in governing and an impressive way of connecting to her base, her responses in interviews reveal her to be largely unaware of, and worse, unconcerned with many issues a VP would have to face. Statement #5: What's with the "family values" lady having a pregnant daughter? And how can she be VP with a retarded kid to care for? Who's kid is that, anyway? She's a total nutjob! Hey, did you see Tina Fey on SNL...
Defense: That sort of sexist, anti-family attack is exactly the sort of thing we've come to expect from etc etc etc...
I believe that for many Palin defenders she has made a real connection. They see a spirited person, someone with values they agree with and energy to burn, someone they'd like to know. And when someone attacks a friend, you defend that friend. That's her gift, and were it backed with a reality-based awareness she'd be unstoppable.
I also realize that for many Palin defenders who believe there are valid refutations of the first 4 statements, this post is going to come off as condescending. I'm afraid I have yet to read such refutations, and nothing I've seen has changed my mind about her abilities. Frankly, most of the pro-Palin press has been varying degrees of "But we just love her."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with what someone else said: This is good news for Romney. In fact, this might even be good news for former Gov. Hunstman (I realize both of these men are Mormon, but they are also the only ones still standing who have been more than mentioned as serious GOP candidates). Yes, no one can read the future and the next Pres. race is years away. Almost no one heard of Obama or Huckabee before the 08 elections. All that is a fact I take into consideration. However, for right now I think he (and possibly with some time Huntsman) is the true front runner of the GOP. The others might have a following, like Palin and Huckabee, but not credibility. Pawlenty is the only other person I have heard of who could compete.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, you wrote out exactly what I was thinking.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: The thing that I don't get is, outside of personal reasons to resign now, the "lame duck" comment. She says she doesn't want to finish her term because-- why? Because without the promise or possibility of re-election she's just killing time? That seems upsidedown to me.
This is the part I don't understand, either. I don't think anyone expects to elect someone for a particular term of office and for that person to resign before the term is carried out -- that can't be a good thing. There is the chaos of transition to someone who was not elected to that office, and then whomever takes over is also a lame duck, because their time is quite limited, too. It doesn't seem to improve the situation at all, at least not for the citizenry.
That's the part that has me really scratching my head.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMHO because she has her own reasons for quitting that she realized might not sound sufficient, especially if she wants to continue her political career, so she added that to foster the impression that she's doing it for the good of the state. My impression is that this is an entirely personal decision -- which is fine, everyone needs to take their personal life into account when making these decisions -- but her rambling explanation sounded to me like after-the-fact rationalization of that decision.
Actually, as I posted elsewhere, her speech sounded to me like a disgruntled forum member loudly announcing that she's tired of the abuse and she's leaving now. If Palin hangs around anyway and keeps bickering with the people making fun of her for leaving, we'll know I was right Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The public reason is that apparently the Alaskan treasury had to pay to defend Palin against allegations like the ethics probe. She stated in her column that she doesn't want the taxpayers to continue paying for those kinds of unfounded claims throughout her governorship. Not a bad reason, on the surface. In addition, she mentions that she and her husband also have mounting legal fees due to this process.
My guess is that she's going to pursue her book deal and that it will make millions for her. If I were her I'd stay quiet after that but she'll probably go on to lobby. She'd probably be good at it.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Almost no one heard of Obama or Huckabee before the 08 elections...
What? Really? I heard all about Obama in 2004 when he won his senate seat and gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. I also heard about his books. He was pretty well known before the campaign started- that's why he ran so soon after his senate win. At least that's my perception, because I was fully aware of who Obama was way before the campaign started.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
